2017 (9) TMI 817

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....on which, Ld. CIT(A), has deleted the addition. 2.1. Before taking-up the issues on merits, it would be relevant to point out that the contention of the Ld. D.R. had been on all the grounds that the Ld. CIT(A) has considered additional evidences for the purpose of deleting the additions. Therefore, the matter may be remanded to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for following Rule-46A of the I.T. Rules. However, Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that all the papers now filed in the paper book were filed before the authorities below and also submitted that since no ground have been raised by the Revenue in the departmental appeal for violation of Rule-46A of the I.T. Rules, therefore, the objections of the Ld. D.R. may be rejected. 3.....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....assessee at Rs. 4,32,000 and made addition of Rs. 2,24,675. The assessee submitted before Ld. CIT(A) that assessee filed return of income on the basis of the details contained in the bank account and A.O. made the addition merely on estimate basis. The Ld. CIT(A) accepted the contention of assessee and held that A.O. made the addition based on surmises and conjectures and accordingly, addition was deleted. 5. After considering the rival contentions, I am of the view that no interference is called for in the matter. The A.O. has not given any reason for estimating the higher income of assessee. The findings of the A.O. are not corroborated by any evidence or material on record. Therefore, on mere estimation, enhancement of income, is with....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....y, deleted. 7. After considering the rival contentions, I do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of the Revenue. The assessee filed copy of the sale agreement dated 20.04.2011 (PB-49) between assessee and Shri Devender Sharma through which Rs. 10 lakhs was received by assessee in cash as advance against sale of the property. PB-52 is the copy of the bank account of the purchaser Shri Devender Sharma which shows that on 13th April, 2011, he has withdrawn cash of Rs. 12 lakhs from his bank account. Thus, the assessee has been able to prove that he received advance against sale of property and thus, proved the identity of the purchaser and his creditworthiness because he has withdrawn the amount in cash from his bank prior to enteri....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....sale proceeds of the family property. Shri Sanjay Tyagi has advanced Rs. 18 lakhs to the assessee. Thus, the assessee proved the identity and genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the creditor. Therefore, the addition was deleted. 9. After considering rival contentions, I do not find any merit in this ground of appeal of Revenue. The assessee filed copy of the confirmation of the creditor in the paper book at page-32 in which it is confirmed by Shri Sanjay Tyagi for giving loan of Rs. 18 lakhs to the assessee through banking channel, which is supported by the copy of the bank statement. The assessee also filed copy of the bank account of Smt. Javitri Devi to show that she has given Rs. 1 crore to Shri Sanjay Tyagi. There....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Therefore, A.O. without any justification disallowed the interest. Ground No.4 of the Revenue is accordingly dismissed. 13. On ground No.5, the Revenue challenged the deletion of addition of Rs. 7,88,000 on account of unexplained investment. The A.O. noted that assessee purchased agricultural land with two other co-owners on 7th June, 2011, out of total consideration of Rs. 3.35 crores, Rs. 75 lakhs were paid as advance in the year 1st April, 2010 to 31st March, 2011 and during the year assessee invested Rs. 92,88,000 relating to his 1/3rd share, out of which Rs. 85 lakhs was paid by cheque and Rs. 7,88,000 was paid by cash. The A.O. did not accept the contention of the assessee because assessee could not prove availability of the cash,....